MicroRNA319-regulated TCPs interact with FBHs and PFT1 to activate CO transcription and control flowering time in Arabidopsis

Jie Liu; Xiliu Cheng; Pan Liu; Dayong Li; Tao Chen; Xiaofeng Gu; Jiaqiang Sun

doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1006833

Abstract

The transcription factor CONSTANS (CO) is a central component that promotes Arabidopsis flowering under long-day conditions (LDs). Here, we show that the microRNA319-regulated TEOSINTE BRANCHED/CYCLOIDEA/PCF (TCP) transcription factors promote photoperiodic flowering through binding to the CO promoter and activating its transcription. Meanwhile, these TCPs directly interact with the flowering activators FLOWERING BHLH (FBHs), but not the flowering repressors CYCLING DOF FACTORs (CDFs), to additively activate CO expression. Furthermore, both the TCPs and FBHs physically interact with the flowering time regulator PHYTOCHROME AND FLOWERING TIME 1 (PFT1) to facilitate CO transcription. Our findings provide evidence that a set of transcriptional activators act directly and additively at the CO promoter to promote CO transcription, and establish a molecular mechanism underlying the regulation of photoperiodic flowering time in Arabidopsis.

Author summary

Plants monitor day-length changes (photoperiod) throughout the year to precisely align their flowering time, which is crucial for successful reproduction. In Arabidopsis, some components, such as CONSTANS (CO), have been proved to play central roles in promoting the photoperiodic flowering under long-day conditions (LDs). In this study, we demonstrate that the microRNA319-regulated TEOSINTE BRANCHED/CYCLOIDEA/PCF (TCP) transcription factors directly bind to the CO promoter. Meanwhile, these TCPs physically interact with the flowering activators FLOWERING BHLH (FBHs) and the flowering regulator PHYTOCHROME AND FLOWERING TIME 1 (PFT1) to form a complex to activate CO transcription and promote photoperiodic flowering under LDs. Our results emphasize the importance of miR319-regulated TCPs in regulating plant flowering time.

Citation: Liu J, Cheng X, Liu P, Li D, Chen T, Gu X, et al. (2017) MicroRNA319-regulated TCPs interact with FBHs and PFT1 to activate CO transcription and control flowering time in Arabidopsis. PLoS Genet 13(5): e1006833. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1006833

Editor: Michael Lenhard, Universität Potsdam, GERMANY

Received: September 8, 2016; Accepted: May 22, 2017; Published: May 30, 2017

Copyright: © 2017 Liu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: This research was supported by Institute of Crop Science, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS), the Agricultural Science and Technology Innovation Program of CAAS, and Youth Talent Plan of CAAS. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Flowering is a transition from the vegetative to the reproductive phase in the plant life cycle, which is crucial for successful reproduction. Genetic approaches in the model plant Arabidopsis, in which flowering is often promoted under long-day (LD) but is delayed during short-day (SD) conditions, reveal that CONSTANS (CO) plays crucial roles in photoperiod monitoring and flowering time determination [1–3].

In Arabidopsis, CO encodes a B-box-type zinc finger transcriptional activator [4]. The co mutant lines flower late under LDs, whereas the plants overexpressing CO display early flowering phenotype in both LDs and SDs [4, 5]. Under LDs, CO displays a biphasic diurnal expression pattern that its transcript levels first rise at the late afternoon to form a small peak in the light period, and a second peak appears during the midnight [5]. Several studies have revealed that the CO protein stabilization is tightly controlled in a light-dependent manner by a number of factors, such as phytochrome A (PHYA), cryptochrome 2 (CRY2) and FKF1 (FLAVIN-BINDING, KELCHREPEAT, F-BOX1) and CONSTITUTIVE PHOTOMORPHOGENIC 1 (COP1) [6–10]. Therefore, the induction of CO mRNA levels at dusk under LDs but not the peak expression at night is essential for the CO protein accumulation and subsequent photoperiodic flowering promotion.

To date, several components have been identified to precisely regulate the diurnal transcription of CO in Arabidopsis. The transcription factors CYCLING DOF FACTORs (CDF1-5) are the well characterized repressors of CO transcription [11, 12]. However, as the repressors, CDFs could not fully explain the remarkable up-regulation of CO transcript levels at dusk. The four basic helix-loop-helix-type (bHLH) transcription factors FLOWERING BHLH 1 (FBH1), FBH2, FBH3, and FBH4 have been identified as the CO transcriptional activators that preferentially bind to the E-box cis-elements of the CO promoter in the afternoon to induce the expression of CO [13], proposing a complicated temporal interplay among repressors and activators in restricting the CO transcription. However, unlike CDFs, FBHs do not show robust daily oscillation at either mRNA or protein levels, implying that their time-dependent binding preference on CO promoter is potentially affected by some other unidentified regulators or co-activators [13].

In addition to the transcription factors, PHYTOCHROME AND FLOWERING TIME 1 (PFT1), encoding the Mediator complex subunit 25 (MED25) in Arabidopsis, was reported to genetically act upstream of CO and promote flowering [14, 15]. However, the molecular mechanisms about how PFT1 relies on the information from light signals to control flowering time through affecting CO transcript levels remain obscure.

The plant-specific TEOSINTE BRANCHED1/CYCLOIDEA/PCF (TCP) family transcription factors contain a conserved non-canonical bHLH domain, which mediates DNA binding or interactions with other proteins [16]. In Arabidopsis, the jaw-D mutants, in which microRNA319 (miR319) is over accumulated and five class II TCP genes including TCP2, TCP3, TCP4, TCP10, and TCP24 are down-regulated, show delayed flowering phenotype [17–19]. However, the functional mode and action mechanism of these TCPs transcription factors in regulation of Arabidopsis flowering time remain unclear. In this study, we demonstrate that the miR319-regulated TCPs function as direct transcriptional activators of the photoperiodic flowering regulator CO to promote Arabidopsis flowering under the inductive photoperiod. Furthermore, these TCPs transcription factors physically interact with the flowering activators FBHs. Meanwhile, we found that these TCPs and FBHs transcription factors directly interact with the flowering time regulator PFT1 to facilitate CO transcription, and this conclusion is further supported by the observation that PFT1 proteins are exclusively enriched in the TCP- and FBH-binding regions of CO promoter under LDs. Thus, we uncover a transcriptional activation complex for direct activation of CO transcription to promote Arabidopsis photoperiodic flowering.

Results

The miR319-regulated TCPs promote Arabidopsis photoperiodic flowering

Previous studies have shown that the Arabidopsis tcp4 and jaw-D mutants displayed delayed flowering under LDs [17–19]. To further evaluate the potential role of the miR319-regulated TCPs transcription factors in the photoperiodic flowering pathway, we examined the flowering time phenotype of jaw-D mutant lines under both LD (16 h light/8 h dark) and SD (8 h light/16 h dark) conditions. As expected, the jaw-D plants displayed an obvious late-flowering phenotype compared with wild type (WT) Columbia-0 (Col-0) under inductive LDs (Fig 1A and 1B), but flowered normally under the non-inductive SDs (S1 Fig). Next, we analyzed the expression patterns of miR319 together with the five miR319-regulated TCPs, including TCP2, TCP3, TCP4, TCP10 and TCP24, in both wild type and jaw-D mutant plants. In consistent with previous reports [17, 19], we also showed that the five miR319-regulated TCPs were all significantly down-regulated in jaw-D plants compared with WT, coupling with the elevated miR319 levels (Fig 1C). Intriguingly, the mRNA levels of TCP2, TCP4 and TCP24 exhibited similar diurnal expression patterns (Fig 1C). Accordingly, we assumed that miR319-regulated TCPs may be involved in the Arabidopsis photoperiodic flowering pathway. To further confirm this hypothesis, we generated transgenic plants carrying a 35S:TCP4 construct [17] (S2 Fig), and observed a significantly early flowering phenotype in the 35S:TCP4 transgenic plants under both LDs and SDs (Fig 1A and 1B; S1 Fig). In summary, we concluded that the miR319-regulated TCPs are positive regulators of Arabidopsis photoperiodic flowering.

Download:

Fig 1. The miR319-regulated TCPs promote Arabidopsis photoperiodic flowering.

(A) Flowering times of 30-d-old wild type (WT) Columbia-0 (Col-0), jaw-D and TCP4 overexpression line (35S:TCP4) under long-day conditions (LDs). (B) Quantification of the flowering times of Col-0, jaw-D and 35S:TCP4. The rosette leaf numbers (mean ± SD, n ≥ 40 plants) as well as the days to bolting (mean ± SD, n ≥ 15 plants) were separately calculated per genotype. Asterisks above the bars denote significant differences compared with the WT Col-0 plants at P < 0.01 (**, Student’s t test). (C) Expression levels of miR319, TCP2, TCP3, TCP4, TCP10 and TCP24 in Col-0 and jaw-D under LDs. The mean values in WT Col-0 at Zeitgeber time (ZT) 0 were set to 1 (mean ± SD, n = 3).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1006833.g001

The miR319-regulated TCPs positively regulate CO transcription

The delayed flowering phenotype of jaw-D plants under LDs led us to examine whether the CO expression is altered in the jaw-D mutant line. Expectedly, the transcript levels of CO were notably reduced in the jaw-D line during the time periods of CO mRNA peaks [Zeitgeber time (ZT) 12–16 and ZT 20–24], as compared with Col-0 seedlings (Fig 2A, left panel). On the contrary, the CO mRNA levels in the 35S:TCP4 line were obviously increased compared with those in WT (Fig 2A, right panel). Notably, we observed a significant up-regulation of CO in the 35S:TCP4 seedlings at dusk during the light phase (ZT 12–16) (Fig 2A, right panel). As is well known, CO directly activates the expression of its downstream targeting flowering-time gene FLOWERING LOCUS T (FT). Thus, we assumed that the FT transcription might be also affected in the jaw-D and 35S:TCP4 plants. As expected, FT expression was partially compromised in jaw-D mutant, but significantly up-regulated in the 35S:TCP4 transgenic line at different time points (S3 Fig), consistent with the altered CO levels in these lines. Together, these results imply that the miR319-regulated TCPs might play positive regulatory roles in activating CO transcription.

Download:

Fig 2. The miR319-Regulated TCPs act genetically upstream of CO in controlling flowering time.

(A) Temporal expression patterns of CO in Col-0, jaw-D, and 35S:TCP4 transgenic line under LDs. (B-E) Genetic interaction of miR319-regulated TCPs and CO. The flowering phenotypes of seedlings grown under LDs were shown in (B) and (D), and the numbers of rosette leaves (mean ± SD, n ≥ 40) as well as the days to bolting (mean ± SD, n ≥ 15) were calculated in (C) and (E).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1006833.g002

The miR319-regulated TCPs act genetically upstream of CO in regulating flowering

To investigate the functional relationship between TCPs and CO in vivo, we tested for genetic interactions between these genes. We crossed the CO-overexpressing transgenic line 35S:CO into the jaw-D background to generate the jaw-D/35S:CO plant and examined its flowering time phenotype in LDs. As expected, the 35S:CO and jaw-D plants displayed early-flowering and late-flowering phenotypes, respectively (Fig 2B and 2C). However, all of the jaw-D/35S:CO seedlings flowered early resembling the flowering time phenotype of 35S:CO plants (Fig 2B and 2C), indicating that overexpression of CO can rescue the late-flowering phenotype of jaw-D. Meanwhile, we introduced 35S:TCP4 into the co-9 mutant background [20] to generate the co-9/35S:TCP4 line. The flowering time analysis in LDs revealed that, similar to co-9, all the co-9/35S:TCP4 seedlings exhibited late-flowering phenotype compared to Col-0 (Fig 2D and 2E), suggesting that the early flowering phenotype caused by 35S:TCP4 is largely dependent on the function of CO. Together, these data suggest that the miR319-regulated TCPs may function genetically upstream of CO to promote photoperiodic flowering.

TCP4 directly binds to the CO promoter and activate CO transcription

As plant-specific transcription factors, the miR319-regulated TCPs predominantly bind to the common TCP-binding motifs [TBM, GGACC(A/C)] to regulate the expression of target genes [19]. We screened the CO promoter sequence (2-kb), and identified five putative TBM sequences. Two of the TBMs are adjacent to the CO transcriptional start site (named as TBM 1 and TBM 2) with positions of -263/-257 and -324/-318, while the other three located at -1341/-1335 (named as TBM 3), -1371/-1365 (named as TBM 4) and -1484/-1478 (named as TBM 5), respectively (Fig 3A, upper panel). To investigate the association of TCP4 with the CO promoter in vivo, we performed chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) assay. Considering that TCP4 was predominantly expressed in the vascular tissues of leaves (S4 Fig), we used the leaf-expressed and viable BLS_pro:rTCP4-GFP transgenic plants (labeled as rTCP4-GFP in this study; rTCP4 represents miR319-cleavage-resistant TCP4; S5 Fig) [21, 22] for the ChIP assay. Here, we designed eight specific amplicons (represented by P1-P8 in Fig 3A, upper panel) which covered the 2-kb region of CO promoter. As a result, the TCP4-GFP enrichments were specifically observed at the P8 and P2/P3/P4 regions of CO promoter in the rTCP4-GFP ChIP samples (rTCP4-GFP + αGFP in Fig 3A), compared with the negative controls (WT + αGFP and rTCP4-GFP - αGFP in Fig 3A), with the highest level at the P8 region (Fig 3A). Consistently, P8 and P3 span the CO promoter regions where the TCP-binding motifs are located (TBM 1/2 in P8, and TBM 3/4/5 in P3 in Fig 3A), indicating that TCP4 is specifically associated with the TBM cis-elements on the CO promoter region in vivo. This binding specificity was further supported by the yeast one-hybrid (Y1H) and electrophoretic mobility shift (EMSA) assays, in which TCP4 exclusively associated with the P8 and P3 fragments, but not the TBM cis-elements mutated mP8 and mP3 [the TBM cis-elements GGACC(C/A) were replaced by AAAAAA] (Fig 3B and 3C; S1 and S2 Tables). Together, these data strongly demonstrate that TCP4 directly binds to the TBM cis-elements in the CO promoter region both in vitro and in vivo.

Download:

Fig 3. The miR319-regulated TCPs activate CO transcription through directly binding to the CO promoter.

(A) ChIP assays revealing enrichment of TCP4 on the CO promoter regions in vivo. WT or BLS_pro:rTCP4-GFP transgenic plants were harvested at ZT 14. Error bars denote ± SD, and three independent biological replicates were performed (n = 3). (B) Yeast one-hybrid (Y1H) assays showing the direct association of TCP4 proteins with CO promoter fragments in vitro. mP8 and mP3, the fragments which contain mutated TBM cis-elements; SD, synthetic dextrose medium; L, Leu; W, Trp; H, His; 3-AT, 3-amino-1,2,4-triazole. 10⁻¹, 10⁻² and 10⁻³ denote the different dilution series. (C) EMSA revealing the binding of TCP4 to the TBM cis-elements in CO promoter. Competition for TCP4 binding was performed with 125× cold probes containing wild type TBM (Competitor wt) or mutated TBM cis-elements (Competitor mut). (D and E) Transcriptional activity assays in Nicotiana benthamiana illustrating the activation of CO transcription by miR319-targeted TCPs. A representative leaf image was shown in (D), and the quantification of the relative luminescence intensities was done in (E) by using n = 18 independent leaves. Error bars denote SDs. (F) Activation of CO transcription in pERGW-rTCP4 transgenic Arabidopsis plants after β-estradiol application. pERGW-rTCP4 transgenic line was separately treated with DMSO (Mock) or 10 μM β-estradiol at ZT 3, and collected 24 h later for the quantification of the transcript levels of TCP4 and CO (mean ± SD, n = 3). Asterisks in (E) and (F) denote significant differences against the control sample values at P < 0.01 (**, Student’s t test).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1006833.g003

Next, to evaluate the direct regulation of TCP4 as well as other miR319-regulated TCPs on CO expression, we performed transient transcriptional activity assays in Nicotiana benthamiana leaves using the CO promoter (2-kb) fused with the LUC gene that encodes firefly luciferase as a reporter [23]. Results showed that the LUC signals were significantly elevated by co-expression of the rTCPs, including rTCP2, rTCP3, rTCP4, rTCP10 and rTCP24 (Fig 3D and 3E; S5 Fig), supporting the hypothesis that the miR319-regulated TCPs are direct transcriptional activators of CO transcription. This conclusion was further confirmed in Arabidopsis by generating the β-estradiol-inducible pERGW-rTCP4 transgenic plants (Fig 3F). In the presence of the chemical inducer β-estradiol, the pERGW-rTCP4 seedlings showed efficient induced expression of TCP4 (Fig 3F, left panel). Most importantly, the CO transcript levels were also significantly up-regulated following the β-estradiol treatment (Fig 3F, right panel), confirming the direct activation of CO expression by TCP4.

The miR319-regulated TCPs physically interact with the flowering activators FBHs but not the flowering repressors CDFs

Because the FBHs and CDFs transcription factors have been shown to separately act as activators and repressors of CO transcription [11–13, 24], we asked whether the miR319-regulated TCPs physically interact with these transcription factors. Indeed, yeast two-hybrid (Y2H) assays revealed an obvious interaction between TCP4 and FBH1 (Fig 4A), and this interaction was further confirmed by LUC complementation imaging (LCI) assay in N. benthamiana (Fig 4B, upper panel). However, no interaction was detected between TCP4 and CDF1 (Fig 4A; Fig 4B, lower panel), suggesting that the interaction between TCP4 and FBH1 may be specifically occurred with biological significance. To further confirm the interaction between TCP4 and FBH1 in vivo, we crossed FBH1-GFP with TCP4-Myc to generate the FBH1-GFP/TCP4-Myc double transgenic Arabidopsis plant, and conducted co-immunoprecipitation (Co-IP) assay. Confidently, the interaction signal was exclusively observed in FBH1-GFP/TCP4-Myc plant, but not in FBH1-GFP or TCP4-Myc control samples (Fig 4C), further supporting the physical interaction between TCP4 and FBH1. Moreover, we conducted Förster resonance energy transfer (FRET) assays using Arabidopsis protoplast cells. Here, we employed a quantitative non-invasive fluorescence lifetime imaging (FLIM) approach to detect FRET efficiency [25]. In this assay, two tested proteins are separately fused with cyan fluorescent protein (CFP) and yellow fluorescent protein (YFP) to generate the donors and acceptors, and the lifetime (described as τ) of the donor fluorescence (CFP) is measured in the presence or absence of the acceptor proteins (represented by τ_DA and τ_D, respectively). If there is a physical interaction between the donor and acceptor, the lifetime τ_DA will be considerably shorter than τ_D. First, we fused TCP4 with CFP to generate the donor, and FBH1 and CDF1 with YFP as the acceptors (Fig 4D–4F). The combination of TCP4-CFP/YFP was also designed to represent the negative control in the absence of acceptor (τ_D, Fig 4D–4F). Confocal microscope detection suggested that all the indicated proteins were properly accumulated in the protoplast cells, and the fluorescent signals of TCP4-CFP, FBH1-YFP and CDF1-YFP fusion proteins were all exclusively observed and perfectly merged in the nuclei (Fig 4D), indicating similar subcellular localization of TCP4, FBH1 and CDF1. Subsequently, we measured the CFP lifetime in the combination samples. As expected, the average lifetime of CFP in the TCP4-CFP/FBH1-YFP co-expression cells was 0.99 ± 0.19 ns (τ_DA; mean ± SD, n = 17 nuclei), which was remarkably (P < 0.01; Student’s t test) shorter than the 2.59 ± 0.39 ns (τ_D; mean ± SD, n = 7 nuclei) determined in the negative control TCP4-CFP/YFP (Fig 4E and 4F), suggesting a strong physical interaction between TCP4 and FBH1. However, in the TCP4-CFP/CDF1-YFP co-expression samples, the average lifetime of CFP was 2.48 ± 0.16 ns (τ_DA; mean ± SD, n = 15 nuclei), very similar to that of the negative control, illustrating that TCP4 does not interact with CDF1 (Fig 4E and 4F).

Download:

Fig 4. TCP4 physically interacts with FBH1 but not CDF1, and acts additively with FBH1 to activate CO transcription.

(A) Yeast two-hybrid (Y2H) assay showing the interaction between TCP4 and FBH1. (B) LUC complementation imaging (LCI) assay detecting the interaction among TCP4, FBH1 and CDF1. (C) Co-immunoprecipitation (Co-IP) assay showing the interaction between TCP4 and FBH1 in Arabidopsis. The asterisk indicates unspecific signal. (D-F) FLIM-FRET measurement of the interaction between TCP4 and FBH1 in Arabidopsis protoplasts. In (D), the CFP and YFP fluorescence signals were observed with the confocal microscope at 24 h after transformation. BF, bright filed; bars = 10 μm. In (E), the white arrowheads indicate the CFP fluorescence lifetime images of the nuclei of representative cells expressing the indicated protein combinations, and the average fluorescence lifetimes are encoded by color as indicated by the scale at right side. Bars = 20 μm. (F) shows the CFP fluorescence intensity decay curves in indicated combinations. The average fluorescence lifetimes represented by τ are separately marked above the curves of TCP4-CFP/YFP (mean ± SD, n = 7 nuclei), TCP4-CFP/FBH1-YFP (mean ± SD, n = 17 nuclei) and TCP4-CFP/CDF1-YFP (mean ± SD, n = 15 nuclei) combinations. ROI, region of interest. (G-I) Transcriptional activity assays in N. benthamiana illustrating the additive effects of TCP4 and FBH1 in activating CO transcription. A representative leaf image is shown in (G), and (H) shows the quantification of the relative luminescence intensities (mean ± SD, n = 18). In (I) the expression levels of TCP4 and FBH1 in the infiltrated N. benthamiana leaf areas were determined by qRT-PCR (mean ± SD, n = 5). Results were normalized to NbACTIN1 (NbACT1). Asterisks in (H) and (I) denote significant differences against the combination 1 at P < 0.01 (**, Student’s t test).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1006833.g004

Further assays by Y2H in yeast and LCI in N. benthamiana revealed that TCP4 also interacts with FBH2, FBH3 and FBH4 (S6A and S6B Fig); meanwhile, FBH1 could also interact with other miR319-regulated TCPs such as TCP2, TCP3, TCP10 and TCP24 (S6C and S6D Fig). These results strongly suggest the functional conservation and redundancy among the miR319-regulated TCPs as well as the FBH homologs. Our simultaneous analyses using the CDF homologs CDF1, CDF2 and CDF3 revealed that these CDFs failed to interact with all the tested TCPs (TCP2, TCP3, TCP4, TCP10 and TCP24) and FBHs (FBH1, FBH2, FBH3 and FBH4) (S7 Fig), indicating that the CO transcription repressors CDFs may function independently of the TCPs and FBHs activators.

TCP4 and FBH1 interact with each other through their transcriptional activation domains and additively activate CO transcription

To define the interaction domains between the TCPs and FBHs, we used TCP4 and FBH1 as the representatives in our analyses. First, we generated the different truncated forms of TCP4 and FBH1 (NT, amino terminal; MD, middle domain; CT, carboxyl terminal; S8A Fig). The transcriptional activation activity assay in yeast cells demonstrated that the MD in TCP4 as well as the NT and MD in FBH1 are the functional transcriptional activation domains (S8B Fig). Interestingly, our LCI assays using different truncated forms of TCP4 and FBH1 revealed that the MD of TCP4 and the NT/MD of FBH1 are exactly the domains for their interaction (S8C and S8D Fig). Based on the above analyses, we confidently uncovered the coupling of transcriptional activation domains and their interaction parts between TCP4 and FBH1.

The above conclusion led us to further evaluate the biological significance of the physical interaction between TCP4 and FBH1 on their transcriptional activation activities. To this end, we carried out transient transcriptional activity assays in N. benthamiana. As the activators of CO transcription, both TCP4 and FBH1 significantly led to obvious induction in the luminescence intensity of CO_pro:LUC by about 6- to 10-fold changes compared with the empty vector control sample (Fig 4G and 4H; combinations 2 and 3). Most importantly, we observed a more significant up-regulation of LUC reporter activity in the TCP4 and FBH1 co-expressed sample (Fig 4G and 4H; combination 4), in which the luminescence intensity was almost 20 times higher than that in the negative control (Fig 4G and 4H; combination 1), confidently suggesting an additive effect of TCP4 and FBH1 on CO transcription activation. Meanwhile, our qRT-PCR assays revealed that TCP4 and FBH1 were similarly expressed in different infiltrated samples (Fig 4I). Together, these data imply that TCP4 and FBH1 might function additively to regulate the expression of CO in Arabidopsis.

Both the miR319-regulated TCPs and FBHs interact with the flowering time regulator PFT1

PFT1, encoding the Arabidopsis Mediator complex subunit 25 (MED25) which usually acts as a transcriptional co-activator, was previously described as an essential regulator of flowering time [14, 15]. These observations promoted us to test whether there may be a functional relationship between PFT1 and the CO activators TCPs and/or FBHs. Indeed, we found that both TCP4 and FBH1 could interact with PFT1, according to the Y2H assay in yeast as well as the LCI and Co-IP assays in N. benthamiana (Fig 5A–5C). Next, we conducted FLIM-FRET to further confirm these physical interactions in Arabidopsis protoplast cells. Similarly, confocal microscope detection confirmed that the TCP4-CFP, FBH1-YFP and PFT1-YFP/CFP fusion proteins were all properly accumulated, and the fluorescent signals of these fusion proteins were exclusively merged in the nuclei (Fig 5D). Subsequently, an average lifetime of 0.90 ± 0.08 ns (τ_DA; mean ± SD, n = 18 nuclei) was determined in the TCP4-CFP/PFT1-YFP co-expression samples (Fig 5E and 5F), which was significantly (P < 0.01; Student’s t test) shorter than that of 2.59 ± 0.39 ns (τ_D) in the negative control (TCP4-CFP/YFP as shown in Fig 4E and 4F); meanwhile, the average lifetime of CFP in the PFT1-CFP/FBH1-YFP samples was only 0.95 ± 0.28 ns (τ_DA; mean ± SD, n = 9 nuclei), remarkably (P < 0.01; Student’s t test) shorter than the 2.80 ± 0.28 ns (τ_D; mean ± SD, n = 6 nuclei) in the negative control PFT1-CFP/YFP (Fig 5E and 5F). These data strongly demonstrate that PFT1 directly interacts with TCP4 and FBH1 in Arabidopsis. Certainly, our extended assays further confirmed that PFT1 also interacts with other miR319-regulated TCPs (including TCP2, TCP3, TCP10 and TCP24) and FBH1 homologs (FBH2, FBH3 and FBH4) (S9 Fig).

Download:

Fig 5. Both TCP4 and FBH1 physically interact with PFT1.

(A) Y2H assay showing the interaction of PFT1 with TCP4 and FBH1. (B) LCI assay revealing the interaction of PFT1 with TCP4 and FBH1. (C) Co-IP assay showing the interaction of PFT1 with TCP4 and FBH1. (D-F) FLIM-FRET showing the interaction of PFT1 with TCP4 and FBH1 in Arabidopsis protoplasts. The CFP and YFP fluorescence signals were detected in (D). The white arrowheads in (E) indicate the representative CFP fluorescence lifetime images of the nuclei. In (F) the CFP fluorescence intensity decay curves in certain combinations of proteins were shown, and the average fluorescence lifetimes (τ) are marked above the curves of TCP4-CFP/PFT1-YFP (mean ± SD, n = 18 nuclei), PFT1-CFP/YFP (mean ± SD, n = 6 nuclei) and PFT1-CFP/FBH1-YFP (mean ± SD, n = 9 nuclei). (G and H) Genetic interaction of TCP4 and PFT1. The flowering phenotypes of seedlings grown under LDs were shown in (G), and the numbers of rosette leaves (mean ± SD, n ≥ 40) as well as the days to bolting (mean ± SD, n ≥ 15) were calculated in (H).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1006833.g005

PFT1 Is genetically required for the role of TCP4 in promoting flowering

The above finding that PFT1 physically interacts with TCP4 promoted us to ask whether PFT1 is functionally involved in the TCP4-regulated photoperiodic flowering pathway. To address this question, we crossed the 35S:TCP4 transgenic plants with the pft1-2 mutant line to generate the 35S:TCP4/pft1-2 plant, and examined its flowering time phenotype in LDs. Our results showed that pft1-2 exhibited a late-flowering phenotype compared to the WT Col-0 (Fig 5G and 5H), which is consistent with the previous studies [14, 15, 26]. More importantly, even though 35S:TCP4 could trigger early flowering (Fig 1A and 1B; Fig 5G and 5H), its promotional effect on flowering was largely compromised in the pft1-2 background (Fig 5G and 5H). These results imply that PFT1 is genetically required for the role of TCP4 in promoting flowering.

PFT1 Acts as co-activator of miR319-regulated TCPs and FBHs to facilitate CO transcription

We further hypothesized that PFT1 might be required for the full functions of miR319-regulated TCPs in the activation of CO transcription. To test this idea, we performed the transient activation activity assays in N. benthamiana (Fig 6A). Consistent with the above results, the expression of TCP4 alone led to about 10-fold up-regulation of the CO_pro:LUC reporter activity (Fig 3D and 3E, combination 4; Fig 6A, combination 3); whereas, PFT1 failed to elevate the CO_pro:LUC reporter activity (Fig 6A, combination 2), indicating that PFT1 alone is not able to activate CO transcription. Interestingly, when we co-expressed PFT1 and TCP4, an obvious additive effect was observed as the luminescence intensities increased by almost 30 folds (Fig 6A, combination 4), compared with the empty vector control (Fig 6A, combination 1), significantly higher than that in the TCP4 single-expression samples (Fig 6A, combination 3), suggesting that PFT1 potentially facilitates the transcriptional activation activity of TCP4 on CO transcription. Parallel experiments showed that PFT1 could also dramatically enhance the transcriptional activation activity of FBH1 in promoting CO transcription (Fig 6A, combinations 5–8). Our qRT-PCR assays revealed that TCP4, FBH1 and PFT1 were all similarly expressed in different infiltrated samples (Fig 6B). Thus, we concluded that PFT1 may function as co-activator of both TCPs and FBHs in the activation of CO transcription.

Download:

Fig 6. PFT1 facilitates the transcriptional activities of TCP4 and FBH1 in activating CO transcription.

(A) Transcriptional activity assays in N. benthamiana showing that PFT1 acts synergistically with TCP4 and FBH1 to activate CO transcription. Upper panels show the representative leaf images, and the bottom columns represent the quantification of the relative luminescence intensities (mean ± SD, n = 18). (B) qRT-PCR determination of the expression levels of TCP4, FBH1 and PFT1 in the infiltrated N. benthamiana leaf areas shown in (A). Asterisks denote significant differences against the combination 1 or 5 at P < 0.01 (**, Student’s t test; mean ± SD, n = 5). (C) Temporal expression pattern of PFT1 in WT under LDs. (D) Temporal expression patterns of CO in WT and pft1-2 mutant line. In (C) and (D), the mean value of WT at ZT 0 was set to 1 (mean ± SD, n = 3). (E) ChIP assays revealing the enrichment of PFT1 on CO promoter region in vivo. Error bars denote ± SD, n = 3. (F) A proposed working model for photoperiodic flowering control.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1006833.g006

PFT1 is enriched in the CO promoter to positively regulate CO transcription

To well understand the action mechanism by which PFT1 regulates flowering time, we first analyzed the time-course expression pattern of PFT1 under LDs. Interestingly, similar to CO [2, 27], PFT1 displayed a diurnal rhythmic expression pattern, with a small elevation of PFT1 mRNA levels in the afternoon (ZT 8–12) and an obvious peak at the midnight (ZT 20–24) (Fig 6C). In consistence with the previous report [14], our data confirmed that the CO expression in the pft1-2 mutant line was significantly compromised compared with that in the WT Col-0 control (Fig 6D), indicating an essential role of PFT1 in facilitating CO transcription.

Based on our findings that PFT1 physically interacts with the CO activators TCPs and FBHs (Fig 4), we were interested to test whether PFT1 proteins are enriched in the CO promoter regions in vivo. To this end, we conducted the ChIP assays using the 35S:PFT1-GFP transgenic Arabidopsis plants [15]. As expected, the PFT1-GFP enrichments were remarkably detected at the P8 and P3 regions of CO promoter with a maximum enrichment at P8 (PFT1-GFP + αGFP in Fig 6E), compared with the negative controls (WT + αGFP and PFT1-GFP - αGFP in Fig 6E). Significantly, the enrichment tendency of PFT1 at the different CO promoter regions well correlated with that of TCP4 (Fig 3A), and was also very similar to that of FBH1 as shown in a previous study [13]. Taken together, we propose that PFT1 is probably enriched in the CO promoter regions to act synergistically with TCPs and FBHs to facilitate CO transcription.

Discussion

In this study, we showed that the miR319-regulated TCPs interact with the flowering time regulators FBHs and PFT1 to activate CO transcription and promote Arabidopsis photoperiodic flowering.

Previous observations suggested that the miR319-regulated TCPs transcription factors may be involved in regulation of Arabidopsis flowering time [17–19]. However, the functional mode and action mechanism of these TCPs transcription factors in regulation of Arabidopsis flowering time remain unclear. In this study, we show that down-regulation of the miR319-regulated TCPs in the jaw-D mutant plants causes late flowering phenotype in LDs, but not in SDs (Fig 1A and 1B; S1 Fig), demonstrating that the miR319-regulated TCPs modulate flowering time through regulating the photoperiodic flowering pathway in Arabidopsis. In support of this view, the expression of CO, a central component of the photoperiodic flowering pathway in Arabidopsis, were significantly reduced in the jaw-D mutant plants in amplitude under LDs (Fig 2A), while up-regulated by both constitutive and inducible overexpression of TCP4 (Figs 2A and 3F). Further, we showed that TCP4 can bind to the TBM cis-elements of the CO promoter and all the miR319-regulated TCPs directly activate CO transcription (Fig 3A–3E). Based on these findings, we conclude that the miR319-regulated TCPs may act as positive regulators of photoperiodic flowering through direct activation of CO transcription in Arabidopsis. Nevertheless, the in planta interplay between the miR319-regulated TCP transcription factors and CO promoter still needs to be intensively analyzed in the future, considering that the non-native promoter used for driving TCP4 expression in this study might cause a non-physiological effect for TCP4. Therefore, it should be intriguing to uncover the dynamic enrichment pattern of each member of these TCP proteins on the CO promoter, which will be useful for better understanding the contribution of these TCPs to the daily CO oscillation.

FBHs act as CO transcription activators in regulating flowering time [13]. Our findings that TCPs physically interact with FBHs provide a novel mechanism for the regulation of CO transcription in the photoperiodic flowering pathway (Fig 4; S6 and S8 Figs). The previous study showed that the E-box cis-elements contained in the -509/-196 region of CO promoter are essential for FBH1 binding as well as FBH1-dependent gene activation [13]. Coincidently, our ChIP assays revealed a preferred binding fragment of CO promoter by TCP4 containing the TBM cis-elements in the -348/-155 region (P8 in Fig 3A), which is adjacent to and partially overlapped with the FBH1 binding region. The spatial proximity of the DNA-binding sites to some extent causes the possibility of direct interaction between TCP4 and FBH1. However, our further assays revealed that TCP4 and FBH1 interact with each other through their transcriptional activation domains (S8 Fig), not through their DNA-binding domains (i.e. the bHLH domains that located in the N- or C-terminals of TCP4 and FBH1, respectively, as shown in S8A Fig), suggesting the physical interaction between TCP4 and FBH1 might facilitate their transcriptional activation activities on CO transcription. Indeed, an additive effect of TCP4 and FBH1 in activating CO transcription was obviously observed in our analyses (Fig 4G and 4H), implying a potential interplay among the TCPs and FBHs transcription factors. However, it should be noticed that TCP4 and FBH1 themselves could, at least in part, activate the transcription of CO (Fig 4G and 4H). Thus, the additive effect of TCP4 and FBH1 might be attributed to more abundant activators enriched on the CO promoter and/or their cooperation upon the co-expression of these two transcription factors. Here, we assume that the miR319-regulated TCPs and FBHs might function cooperatively and/or independently to activate the CO expression in certain situations. However, it is eagerly needed to explore the genetic interaction between the TCPs and FBHs regarding the regulation of CO expression in vivo in the future.

In this study, we confirmed that both TCPs and FBHs physically interact with the transcriptional co-activator PFT1 (Fig 5 and S9 Fig). Although PFT1, encoding the Mediator subunit 25 in Arabidopsis, was initially identified as a positive regulator of flowering time more than ten years ago [14], the molecular mechanisms of its action in regulation of flowering time remain obscure to date. Mediator is a multiprotein complex that promotes transcription by recruiting the RNA polymerase II (RNAPII) to the promoter regions upon the physical interaction with specific DNA-bound transcription factors [28, 29]. Our observations reinforce that co-expression of PFT1/MED25 with TCP4 or FBH1 additively elevated the CO transcription levels (Fig 6A), while the loss-of-function of PFT1 leads to an obvious reduction of CO mRNA levels (Fig 6D). It is noteworthy, in our assays, that PFT1 failed to promote CO transcription in the absence of TCP4 or FBH1 (Fig 6A), implying the essential roles of TCPs and FBHs for the function of PFT1 in activating CO transcription. This hypothesis was further supported by our ChIP assay results that the PFT1 proteins were enriched with the peaks in the CO promoter regions near the TCP4- and FBH1-binding sites (Figs 3A and 6E). Collectively, our results suggest that PFT1 potentially acts as positive regulator of CO transcription.

Based on our findings, we proposed a working model on the control of photoperiodic flowering time (Fig 6F). Briefly, the miR319-regulated TCPs and FBHs directly bind to the adjacent regions of CO promoter in the wild-type Arabidopsis plants; they physically interact with each other through their transcriptional activation domains to activate CO transcription through direct interaction with PFT1, and consequently promote flowering under LDs (Fig 6F, upper panel). By contrast, in the jaw-D mutant plants, the association of TCPs with CO promoter is drastically blocked due to the overdose of miR319 and consequent decrease of TCP proteins, leading to down-regulation of CO transcription during the peak expression time, which as a result causes delayed flowering (Fig 6F, lower panel).

Materials and methods

Plant materials and growth conditions

The transgenic and mutant lines used in this study were previously described: jaw-1D [17]; co-9 [20]; BLS_pro:rTCP4-GFP [21]; CO_pro:GUS [30]; 35S:CO [7]; pft1-2 [26]; 35S:PFT1-GFP [15].

Arabidopsis thaliana were grown under LD (16-h-light/8-h-dark) or SD (8-h-light/16-h-dark) conditions at 22°C. Time-course analyses were performed on 12-d-old seedlings grown on half-strength Murashige and Skoog medium. Nicotiana benthamiana was grown in a greenhouse at 22°C with a 16-h-light/8-h-dark cycle.

Analyses of flowering time phenotype

Analyses of flowering time were performed as previously described [15]. Flowering time was recorded from at least 15 plants per genotype that were grown in soil under either LDs or SDs, and was scored as the number of days from germination to the first appearance of buds at the apex (days to bolting). The rosette leaf number was counted after the main stem has bolted 1 cm.

DNA constructs and generation of transgenic/hybrid plants

For Gateway cloning, all the gene sequences were cloned into the pQBV3 or pENTRY vectors (Gateway) and subsequently introduced into certain destination vectors following the Gateway technology (Invitrogen). For ligase dependent cloning, the endonuclease digested vectors and PCR fragments were separately purified by PCR cleanup kit (Axygen, AP-PCR-250), and ligated at 16°C with T4 DNA ligase (New England Biolabs, M2020). For ligase-independent ligation, the ligation free cloning mastermix (abm) was used following the application handbook.

For generation of miR319-cleavage-resistant forms of TCPs (rTCPs) as well as the TBM cis-elements mutated CO promoter fragments, the one-step site-directed mutagenesis strategy was performed. The wild type TCP (TCP2, TCP3, TCP4, TCP10 and TCP24) sequences or the CO promoter fragments were first connected into the pQBV3 entry vector, and then the mutations on miR319-target sites or TBM cis-elements were introduced by the specifically designed primers, as described previously [31]. The PCR amplifications were carried out by pre-heating at 94°C for 3 min, 16 cycles of 94°C for 1 min, 55°C for 1 min and 68°C for 7 min, followed by incubation at 68°C for 1 h. The PCR products were purified by PCR cleanup kit (Axygen, AP-PCR-250), and digested by 1 μl of DpnI (New England Biolabs, R0176L). The obtained products were transformed into Escherichia coli competent cells for sequencing. The primer sequences used for site-directed mutagenesis are listed in S5 Table.

For the generation of 35S:TCP4 lines, the expression vector 35S:TCP4 [17] was transformed into the Agrobacterium strain GV3101 (pMP90). For the construction of TCP4_pro:GUS transgenic lines, the 5’ upstream region of the TCP4 sequence (-2000/-1) was amplified from Col-0 genomic DNA, and cloned into the binary vector pMDC162 vector to generate TCP4_pro:GUS expression construct. For the generation of β-estradiol-inducible pERGW-rTCP4 transgenic plants, the construct pQBV3-rTCP4 containing the miR319-cleavage-resistant TCP4 was introduced into the destination vector pERGW to fuse with a β-estradiol-inducible promoter following the Gateway cloning strategy. All of the binary vectors were introduced into the wild type Col-0 plants by Agrobacterium-mediated transformation to generate transgenic plants [20]. More details of the DNA constructs are listed in S6 Table. jaw-D/35S:CO, co-9/35S:TCP4, FBH1-GFP/TCP4-Myc and 35S:TCP4/pft1-2 were generated by genetic crossing.

RNA extraction and gene expression analysis

The 12-d-old Arabidopsis seedlings grown on half-strength Murashige and Skoog medium were collected at the indicated time after the onset of light. Total RNA was extracted using Trizol (Invitrogen) reagent. About 2 μg of total RNA and Moloney murine leukemia virus reverse transcriptase (M-MLV; Promega) were further used for reverse transcription. The cDNA was diluted to 100 μL with water in a 1:5 ratio, and 2 μL of the diluted cDNA was used for quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) with the SYBR Premix Ex Taq (Perfect Real Time; TaKaRa). The reverse transcription of mature miRNAs was performed as described previously [32], by using specifically designed stem-loop primers. qRT-PCR was performed using the following program: 120 sec at 95°C, 45 cycles of 10 sec at 95°C, and 1 min at 60°C. ACTIN7 and U6 expression levels were used as the internal controls for coding genes and miRNAs, respectively. All the experiments were performed independently three times. All the primers used for real time quantification are listed in S3 Table.

Yeast experiments

For yeast one-hybrid assay, the pHIS2 derivatives were co-transformed with GAL4-AD constructs harboring the P8 and P3 sequences, or mP8 and mP3 fragments which contain mutated TBM cis-elements [GGACC(C/A) were replaced by AAAAAA] (see S1 Table) into the yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) strain AH109. The transformed cells were first grown on synthetic dextrose medium lacking Leu and Trp (SD-L/W) and then were transferred to the synthetic dextrose medium lacking Leu, Trp and His (SD-L/W/H) medium supplemented with 3-amino-1,2,4-triazole (3-AT) for selection. For yeast two-hybrid assay, the GAL4-AD and GAL4-BD derivatives were co-transformed into the yeast strain AH109, and grown on SD-L/W. Further, the yeast cells were screened on the SD-L/W/H or SD-L/W/H/A media with 3-AT. For transcriptional activation activity analysis, the GAL4-BD derivatives were separately transformed into yeast strain AH109, and the transformed yeast cells were grown and selected on SD-L and SD-L/H/A media, respectively. Each experiment was independently repeated for three times with similar results.

LCI assays

The LCI assays for the protein interaction detection was performed in N. benthamiana leaves as described previously [33]. Briefly, the full-length or truncated forms of the genes were separately fused with the N- and C-terminal parts of the luciferase reporter gene LUC. Agrobacteria cells harboring the nLUC and cLUC derivative constructs were co-infiltrated into N. benthamiana leaves, and the LUC activities were analyzed 48 h after infiltration using NightSHADE LB 985 (Berthold). In each analysis, five independent N. benthamiana leaves were infiltrated and analyzed, and totally three biological replications were performed with similar results.

Transcriptional activity assays in N. benthamiana

The transcriptional activity assays were performed in N. benthamiana leaves as previously described [23]. The 2-kb CO promoter sequence was amplified from Col-0 genome DNA, and fused with the luciferase reporter gene LUC through Gateway reactions (Invitrogen) into the plant binary vector pGWB35 [34] to generate the reporter construct CO_pro:LUC. For the construction of the effectors, the full-length coding sequences of indicated genes were amplified and cloned into the plant binary vector pGWB17 [34]. The reporter and effector constructs were separately introduced into Agrobacterium strain GV3101 (pMP90), to carry out the co-infiltration in N. benthamiana leaves. LUC activities were observed and quantified 48 h after infiltration using NightSHADE LB 985 (Berthold). In each experiment, 10 independent N. benthamiana leaves were infiltrated and analyzed, and totally three biological replications were performed with quantification.

Protein extraction and co-immunoprecipitation analysis

The co-immunoprecipitation (Co-IP) analyses were performed using transgenic Arabidopsis seedlings or Agrobacterium-infiltrated N. benthamiana leaves. The indicated genes were combined into pGWB5 and pGWB17 vectors to produce the GFP- or Myc-fused constructs, and transformed into Agrobacterium strain GV3101. For Agrobacterium-mediated transient expression, the Agrobacteria harboring indicated derivatives were co-infiltrated into the N. benthamiana leaves, and the samples were collected 48 h post infiltration. The total proteins were extracted using the lysis buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl at pH 7.5, 150 mM NaCl, 5 mM EDTA at pH 8.0, 0.1% Triton X-100, 0.2% NP-40) with freshly added PMSF (phenylmethylsulphonyl fluoride, 10 mM) and protease inhibitor cocktail (Roche, 11873580001). Anti-GFP- and Anti-Myc-conjugated agarose beads (MBL, M047-8 and D153-8) were used for the immunoprecipitation. In western blotting, anti-GFP (1:2000; Roche, 11814460001), anti-Myc (1:5000; Roche, 11667149001) and anti-mouse IgG (1:75000, Sigma, A9044-2ML) antibodies were used for the detection of GFP- and Myc-tagged proteins. Totally three independent biological replicates were performed.

FLIM-FRET assays

For FLIM-FRET assays, the indicated proteins were separately fused with cyan fluorescent protein (CFP) and yellow fluorescent protein (YFP) to generate the donors and receptors. The FLIM-FRET experiments were performed as described previously [25] with some modifications. Briefly, the donors and receptors were co-expressed in Arabidopsis protoplast cells. After 24 h incubation, the CFP and YFP fluorescence signals were imaged with the confocal microscope (Carl Zeiss, LSM880). Förster resonance energy transfer was measured by fluorescence lifetime imaging using the PicoHarp 300 time-correlated single-photon counting (TCSPC) module (PicoQuant, Germany). A pulsed laser (405 nm) tuned at 84MHz was used to excite the CFP. The emission from 450 to 490 nm was collected by the detector in 512×512 pixel format. The acquired FLIM decay curve from regions of interest (ROI) was fitted by two-exponential theoretical models using SymPhoTime 64 software, and the mean CFP lifetimes were calculated as the mean values of the fit function and analyzed using SymPhoTime 64 software. In each analysis, 6 independent nuclei were quantitatively analyzed, and totally three independent replications were performed with similar results.

ChIP assays

Arabidopsis seedlings were grown on half-strength Murashige and Skoog medium in 16-h-light/8-h-dark LDs for 14 days, and the samples (2 to 3 grams) were collected at ZT 14. The ChIP assays were carried out following the procedure described previously [23]. The ChIP assays were separately performed with (+ αGFP) or without (- αGFP) the anti-GFP antibody. Finally, the GFP-specific enrichments of the fragments from CO promoter were analyzed by qPCR, and the enrichment fold of a certain fragment was calculated by normalizing to the amount of ACTIN7 promoter enriched in the same sample. Anti-GFP-CHIP grade antibody (Abcam, ab290) and protein G plus agarose (Santa cruz, sc-2002) were used for the immunoprecipitation. The enrichment of DNA fragments was determined by qPCR with specific primers, as shown in S4 Table. Three biological replicates were performed.

EMSA

The maltose binding protein (MBP) tagged TCP4 protein was expressed in E. coli strain Transetta-DE3 (Transgen biotech, CD801), and purified using the amylose resin (New England Biolabs, E8021V) following the manual. The CO promoter probes containing the TBM cis-element were synthesized and labeled with digoxigenin-11-ddUTP at the 3’ end by using DIG gel shift kit (Roche, 03353591910). Unlabeled dimerized oligo-nucleotides of CO promoter fragments containing the wild type or mutated TBM cis-elements were generated as the competitors. EMSAs were performed as previously described [33]. Competition for TCP4 binding was performed with 125× cold probes containing TBM cis-elements [GGACC(C/A)] or mutated TBM cis-elements (AAAAAA). Sequences of probes and competitors are shown in S2 Table. Three biological replicates were performed.

Accession numbers

Sequence data from this study can be found in the Arabidopsis Genome Initiative database under the following accession numbers: CO (At5g15840), TCP2 (At4g18390), TCP3 (At1g53230), TCP4 (At3g15030), TCP10 (At2g31070), TCP24 (At1g30210), FT (AT1G65480), FBH1 (At1g35460), FBH2 (At4g09180), FBH3 (At1g51140), FBH4 (At2g42280), CDF1 (At5g62430), CDF2 (At5g39660), CDF3 (At3g47500), PFT1 (At1g25540), ACTIN7 (At5g09810) and U6 (At3g14735).

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Flowering times of the indicated genotypes under SDs.

The numbers of rosette leaves (mean ± SD, n ≥ 15) as well as the days to bolting (mean ± SD, n ≥ 15) of Col-0, jaw-D and 35S:TCP4 were separately counted. SD, short-day (8 h light/16 h dark) condition.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1006833.s001

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Expression of TCP4 and CO in Col-0 and 35S:TCP4 transgenic plants.

The 12-d-old seedlings of wild type (WT) Col-0 and 35S:TCP4 transgenic plants were harvested at Zeitgeber time (ZT) 3, and the expression levels of TCP4 (A) and CO (B) in WT and 35S:TCP4 were separately quantified by qRT-PCR. All the values were normalized to the internal control gene ACT7 (mean ± SD, n = 3), and the mean values in WT Col-0 were set to 1. Asterisks denote significant differences compared with the WT negative control at P < 0.01 (**, Student’s t test).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1006833.s002

(TIF)

S3 Fig. FT expression levels in jaw-D and 35S:TCP4 plants.

The 12-d-old Arabidopsis seedlings of Col-0, jaw-D and 35S:TCP4 were separately collected at ZT 0, 6, 12 and 18. All the values were normalized to the internal control genes ACT7 (mean ± SD, n = 3). The mean value in WT Col-0 at ZT 0 was set to 1. Asterisks above the bars denote significant differences at P < 0.01 (**, Student’s t test).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1006833.s003

(TIF)

S4 Fig. Spatial expression pattern of TCP4 in WT plant.

The whole-mount staining of a 7-d-old seedling (A), a 12-d-old seedling (B), a cotyledon (C) and the first set of true leaf (D) from the plants carrying the TCP4_pro:GUS (β-glucuronidase) reporter gene were shown with scale bars (1 mm).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1006833.s004

(TIF)

S5 Fig. The partial mRNA sequences of the wild type and miR319-cleavage-resistant derivatives of miR319-regulated TCP genes.

The sequences of three miR319 members from Arabidopsis are shown above, and the single nucleotide variant in miR319c is marked by the purple color. The nucleotide mutations were introduced into the miR319 target site in TCPs to produce miR319-cleavage-resistant rTCPs without changing the coded protein sequences. The synonymous changes are marked by red color, and the partial coded protein sequences are shown below.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1006833.s005

(TIF)

S6 Fig. Physical interaction between miR319-regulated TCPs and FBH homologs.

(A and B) Y2H and LCI detections of the interaction between TCP4 and FBHs, including FBH2, FBH3 and FBH4. (C and D) Y2H and LCI assays showing the interaction between FBH1 and TCPs (TCP2, TCP3, TCP10 and TCP24). SD-L/W, synthetic dextrose medium lacking Leu and Trp; SD-L/W/H/A, synthetic dextrose medium lacking Leu, Trp, His and Ade; 3-AT, 3-amino-1,2,4-triazole; 10⁻¹, 10⁻², 10⁻³ and 10⁻⁴ denote the different dilution series.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1006833.s006

(TIF)

S7 Fig. Neither the miR319-regulated TCPs nor FBHs interact with CDFs.

(A) Y2H assays to determine the interactions among TCPs-CDFs and FBHs-CDFs (n = 3). SD-L/W, synthetic dextrose medium lacking Leu and Trp; SD-L/W/H/A, synthetic dextrose medium lacking Leu, Trp, His and Ade; 3-AT, 3-amino-1,2,4-triazole; 10⁻¹, 10⁻², 10⁻³ and 10⁻⁴ denote the different dilution series. (B) LCI assays to detect the interaction between TCP4 and CDFs transcription factors (n = 5). (C) LCI assays to detect the interaction between FBH1 and CDFs transcription factors (n = 5).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1006833.s007

(TIF)

S8 Fig. TCP4 and FBH1 interact with each other through their transcriptional activation domains.

(A) Schemes display full length structures of TCP4 and FBH1 proteins as well as truncated versions. The locations of bHLH domains in TCP4 and FBH1 are marked by black and blue boxes, respectively. NT, amino terminal; MD, middle domain; CT, carboxyl terminal. Scale bar = 50 amino acids (aa). (B) Determination of the transcriptional activation domains of TCP4 and FBH1 in yeast. SD-L, synthetic dextrose medium lacking Leu; SD-L/H/A, synthetic dextrose medium lacking Leu, His and Ade; 10⁻¹, 10⁻², 10⁻³ and 10⁻⁴ denote the different dilution series. (C) LCI assay showing the interaction between truncated TCP4 versions and the full length FBH1. (D) LCI assay showing the interaction between full length TCP4 and the truncated FBH1 versions. The LUC signals in (C) and (D) were collected at 48 hpi (n = 5).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1006833.s008

(TIF)

S9 Fig. Both the miR319-regulated TCPs and FBHs interact with PFT1.

(A) Y2H assay showing the physical interaction between PFT1 and TCPs/FBHs (n = 3). (B) LCI assay showing the interaction between PFT1 and the miR319-regulated TCPs (n = 5). (C) LCI assay showing the interaction between PFT1 and FBHs (n = 5).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1006833.s009

(TIF)

S1 Table. CO promoter fragments used in yeast one-hybrid assay.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1006833.s010

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Probes used in EMSA experiment.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1006833.s011

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Primers used for qRT-PCR.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1006833.s012

(DOCX)

S4 Table. Primers used for ChIP-qPCR assays.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1006833.s013

(DOCX)

S5 Table. Primers used for site-directed mutagenesis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1006833.s014

(DOCX)

S6 Table. Constructs used in this study.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1006833.s015

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We thank Detlef Weigel, Javier F. Palatnik, Doris Wagner, George Coupland, Hao Yu, Chuanyou Li and Yongfu Fu for sharing some genetic materials.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: JS.
Data curation: JL XC PL DL TC XG JS.
Formal analysis: JL XC JS.
Funding acquisition: JS.
Investigation: JL XC PL.
Project administration: JS.
Supervision: JS.
Validation: JL XC PL DL TC XG JS.
Visualization: JL.
Writing – original draft: JL JS.
Writing – review & editing: JL XL JS.

References

1. Kobayashi Y, Weigel D. Move on up, it's time for change—mobile signals controlling photoperiod-dependent flowering. Genes Dev. 2007; 21:2371–84. pmid:17908925
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
2. Imaizumi T. Arabidopsis circadian clock and photoperiodism: time to think about location. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2010; 13:83–9. pmid:19836294
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
3. Turck F, Fornara F, Coupland G. Regulation and identity of florigen: FLOWERING LOCUS T moves center stage. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2008; 59:573–94. pmid:18444908
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
4. Putterill J, Robson F, Lee K, Coupland G. Chromosome walking with YAC clones in Arabidopsis: isolation of 1700 kb of contiguous DNA on chromosome 5, including a 300 kb region containing the flowering-time gene CO. Mol Gen Genet. 1993; 239:145–57. pmid:8099710
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
5. Suárez-López P, Wheatley K, Robson F, Onouchi H, Valverde F, Coupland G. CONSTANS mediates between the circadian clock and the control of flowering in Arabidopsis. Nature. 2001; 410:1116–20. pmid:11323677
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
6. Guo H, Yang H, Mockler TC, Lin C. Regulation of flowering time by Arabidopsis photoreceptors. Science. 1998; 279:1360–3. pmid:9478898
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
7. Valverde F, Mouradov A, Soppe W, Ravenscroft D, Samach A, Coupland G. Photoreceptor regulation of CONSTANS protein in photoperiodic flowering. Science. 2004; 303:1003–6. pmid:14963328
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
8. Song YH, Smith RW, To BJ, Millar AJ, Imaizumi T. FKF1 conveys timing information for CONSTANS stabilization in photoperiodic flowering. Science. 2012; 336:1045–9. pmid:22628657
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
9. Jang S, Marchal V, Panigrahi KC, Wenkel S, Soppe W, Deng XW, et al. Arabidopsis COP1 shapes the temporal pattern of CO accumulation conferring a photoperiodic flowering response. EMBO J. 2008; 27:1277–88. pmid:18388858
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
10. Liu LJ, Zhang YC, Li QH, Sang Y, Mao J, Lian HL, et al. COP1-mediated ubiquitination of CONSTANS is implicated in cryptochrome regulation of flowering in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell. 2008; 20:292–306. pmid:18296627
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
11. Sawa M, Nusinow DA, Kay SA, Imaizumi T. FKF1 and GIGANTEA complex formation is required for day-length measurement in Arabidopsis. Science. 2007; 318:261–5. pmid:17872410
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
12. Fornara F, Panigrahi KC, Gissot L, Sauerbrunn N, Ruhl M, Jarillo JA, et al. Arabidopsis DOF transcription factors act redundantly to reduce CONSTANS expression and are essential for a photoperiodic flowering response. Dev Cell. 2009; 17:75–86. pmid:19619493
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
13. Ito S, Song YH, Josephson-Day AR, Miller RJ, Breton G, Olmstead RG, et al. FLOWERING BHLH transcriptional activators control expression of the photoperiodic flowering regulator CONSTANS in Arabidopsis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012; 109:3582–7. pmid:22334645
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
14. Cerdán PD, Chory J. Regulation of flowering time by light quality. Nature. 2003; 423:881–5. pmid:12815435
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
15. Chen R, Jiang H, Li L, Zhai Q, Qi L, Zhou W, et al. The Arabidopsis mediator subunit MED25 differentially regulates jasmonate and abscisic acid signaling through interacting with the MYC2 and ABI5 transcription factors. Plant Cell. 2012; 24:2898–916. pmid:22822206
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
16. Cubas P, Lauter N, Doebley J, Coen E. The TCP domain: a motif found in proteins regulating plant growth and development. Plant J. 1999; 18:215–22. pmid:10363373
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
17. Palatnik JF, Allen E, Wu X, Schommer C, Schwab R, Carrington JC, et al. Control of leaf morphogenesis by microRNAs. Nature. 2003; 425:257–63. pmid:12931144
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
18. Sarvepalli K, Nath U. Hyper-activation of the TCP4 transcription factor in Arabidopsis thaliana accelerates multiple aspects of plant maturation. Plant J. 2011; 67:595–607. pmid:21518050
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
19. Schommer C, Palatnik JF, Aggarwal P, Chételat A, Cubas P, Farmer EE, et al. Control of jasmonate biosynthesis and senescence by miR319 targets. PLoS Biol. 2008; 6:e230. pmid:18816164
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
20. Balasubramanian S, Sureshkumar S, Lempe J, Weigel D. Potent induction of Arabidopsis thaliana flowering by elevated growth temperature. PLoS Genet. 2006; 2:e106. pmid:16839183
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
21. Efroni I, Han SK, Kim HJ, Wu MF, Steiner E, Birnbaum KD, et al. Regulation of leaf maturation by chromatin-mediated modulation of cytokinin responses. Dev Cell. 2013; 24:438–45. pmid:23449474
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
22. Lifschitz E, Eviatar T, Rozman A, Shalit A, Goldshmidt A, Amsellem Z, et al. The tomato FT ortholog triggers systemic signals that regulate growth and flowering and substitute for diverse environmental stimuli. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006; 103:6398–403. pmid:16606827
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
23. Sun J, Qi L, Li Y, Chu J, Li C. PIF4-mediated activation of YUCCA8 expression integrates temperature into the auxin pathway in regulating Arabidopsis hypocotyl growth. PLoS Genet. 2012; 8:e1002594. pmid:22479194
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
24. Imaizumi T, Schultz TF, Harmon FG, Ho LA, Kay SA. FKF1 F-box protein mediates cyclic degradation of a repressor of CONSTANS in Arabidopsis. Science. 2005; 309:293–7. pmid:16002617
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
25. Shen QH, Saijo Y, Mauch S, Biskup C, Bieri S, Keller B, et al. Nuclear activity of MLA immune receptors links isolate-specific and basal disease-resistance responses. Science. 2007; 315:1098–103. pmid:17185563
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
26. Kidd BN, Edgar CI, Kumar KK, Aitken EA, Schenk PM, Manners JM, et al. The mediator complex subunit PFT1 is a key regulator of jasmonate-dependent defense in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell. 2009; 21:2237–52. pmid:19671879
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
27. Song YH, Shim JS, Kinmonth-Schultz HA, Imaizumi T. Photoperiodic flowering: time measurement mechanisms in leaves. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2015; 66:441–64. pmid:25534513
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
28. Chadick JZ, Asturias FJ. Structure of eukaryotic Mediator complexes. Trends Biochem Sci. 2005; 30:264–71. pmid:15896745
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
29. Conaway RC, Conaway JW. Function and regulation of the Mediator complex. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2011; 21:225–30. pmid:21330129
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
30. An H, Roussot C, Suárez-López P, Corbesier L, Vincent C, Piñeiro M, et al. CONSTANS acts in the phloem to regulate a systemic signal that induces photoperiodic flowering of Arabidopsis. Development. 2004; 131:3615–26. pmid:15229176
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
31. Zheng L, Baumann U, Reymond JL. An efficient one-step site-directed and site-saturation mutagenesis protocol. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004; 32:e115. pmid:15304544
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
32. Chen C, Ridzon DA, Broomer AJ, Zhou Z, Lee DH, Nguyen JT, et al. Real-time quantification of microRNAs by stem-loop RT-PCR. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005; 33:e179. pmid:16314309
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
33. Sun J, Qi L, Li Y, Zhai Q, Li C. PIF4 and PIF5 transcription factors link blue light and auxin to regulate the phototropic response in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell. 2013; 25:2102–14. pmid:23757399
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
34. Nakagawa T, Kurose T, Hino T, Tanaka K, Kawamukai M, Niwa Y, et al. Development of series of gateway binary vectors, pGWBs, for realizing efficient construction of fusion genes for plant transformation. J Biosci Bioeng. 2007; 104:34–41. pmid:17697981
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Kobayashi Y, Weigel D. Move on up, it's time for change—mobile signals controlling photoperiod-dependent flowering. Genes Dev. 2007; 21:2371–84. pmid:17908925
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] PubMed/NCBI

[4] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. Imaizumi T. Arabidopsis circadian clock and photoperiodism: time to think about location. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2010; 13:83–9. pmid:19836294
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[6] View Article

[7] PubMed/NCBI

[8] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Turck F, Fornara F, Coupland G. Regulation and identity of florigen: FLOWERING LOCUS T moves center stage. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2008; 59:573–94. pmid:18444908
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[10] View Article

[11] PubMed/NCBI

[12] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Putterill J, Robson F, Lee K, Coupland G. Chromosome walking with YAC clones in Arabidopsis: isolation of 1700 kb of contiguous DNA on chromosome 5, including a 300 kb region containing the flowering-time gene CO. Mol Gen Genet. 1993; 239:145–57. pmid:8099710
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[14] View Article

[15] PubMed/NCBI

[16] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Suárez-López P, Wheatley K, Robson F, Onouchi H, Valverde F, Coupland G. CONSTANS mediates between the circadian clock and the control of flowering in Arabidopsis. Nature. 2001; 410:1116–20. pmid:11323677
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[18] View Article

[19] PubMed/NCBI

[20] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Guo H, Yang H, Mockler TC, Lin C. Regulation of flowering time by Arabidopsis photoreceptors. Science. 1998; 279:1360–3. pmid:9478898
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[22] View Article

[23] PubMed/NCBI

[24] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Valverde F, Mouradov A, Soppe W, Ravenscroft D, Samach A, Coupland G. Photoreceptor regulation of CONSTANS protein in photoperiodic flowering. Science. 2004; 303:1003–6. pmid:14963328
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[26] View Article

[27] PubMed/NCBI

[28] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Song YH, Smith RW, To BJ, Millar AJ, Imaizumi T. FKF1 conveys timing information for CONSTANS stabilization in photoperiodic flowering. Science. 2012; 336:1045–9. pmid:22628657
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[30] View Article

[31] PubMed/NCBI

[32] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Jang S, Marchal V, Panigrahi KC, Wenkel S, Soppe W, Deng XW, et al. Arabidopsis COP1 shapes the temporal pattern of CO accumulation conferring a photoperiodic flowering response. EMBO J. 2008; 27:1277–88. pmid:18388858
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[34] View Article

[35] PubMed/NCBI

[36] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Liu LJ, Zhang YC, Li QH, Sang Y, Mao J, Lian HL, et al. COP1-mediated ubiquitination of CONSTANS is implicated in cryptochrome regulation of flowering in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell. 2008; 20:292–306. pmid:18296627
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[38] View Article

[39] PubMed/NCBI

[40] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Sawa M, Nusinow DA, Kay SA, Imaizumi T. FKF1 and GIGANTEA complex formation is required for day-length measurement in Arabidopsis. Science. 2007; 318:261–5. pmid:17872410
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[42] View Article

[43] PubMed/NCBI

[44] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Fornara F, Panigrahi KC, Gissot L, Sauerbrunn N, Ruhl M, Jarillo JA, et al. Arabidopsis DOF transcription factors act redundantly to reduce CONSTANS expression and are essential for a photoperiodic flowering response. Dev Cell. 2009; 17:75–86. pmid:19619493
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[46] View Article

[47] PubMed/NCBI

[48] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Ito S, Song YH, Josephson-Day AR, Miller RJ, Breton G, Olmstead RG, et al. FLOWERING BHLH transcriptional activators control expression of the photoperiodic flowering regulator CONSTANS in Arabidopsis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012; 109:3582–7. pmid:22334645
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[50] View Article

[51] PubMed/NCBI

[52] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Cerdán PD, Chory J. Regulation of flowering time by light quality. Nature. 2003; 423:881–5. pmid:12815435
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[54] View Article

[55] PubMed/NCBI

[56] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Chen R, Jiang H, Li L, Zhai Q, Qi L, Zhou W, et al. The Arabidopsis mediator subunit MED25 differentially regulates jasmonate and abscisic acid signaling through interacting with the MYC2 and ABI5 transcription factors. Plant Cell. 2012; 24:2898–916. pmid:22822206
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[58] View Article

[59] PubMed/NCBI

[60] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Cubas P, Lauter N, Doebley J, Coen E. The TCP domain: a motif found in proteins regulating plant growth and development. Plant J. 1999; 18:215–22. pmid:10363373
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[62] View Article

[63] PubMed/NCBI

[64] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Palatnik JF, Allen E, Wu X, Schommer C, Schwab R, Carrington JC, et al. Control of leaf morphogenesis by microRNAs. Nature. 2003; 425:257–63. pmid:12931144
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[66] View Article

[67] PubMed/NCBI

[68] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Sarvepalli K, Nath U. Hyper-activation of the TCP4 transcription factor in Arabidopsis thaliana accelerates multiple aspects of plant maturation. Plant J. 2011; 67:595–607. pmid:21518050
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[70] View Article

[71] PubMed/NCBI

[72] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Schommer C, Palatnik JF, Aggarwal P, Chételat A, Cubas P, Farmer EE, et al. Control of jasmonate biosynthesis and senescence by miR319 targets. PLoS Biol. 2008; 6:e230. pmid:18816164
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[74] View Article

[75] PubMed/NCBI

[76] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Balasubramanian S, Sureshkumar S, Lempe J, Weigel D. Potent induction of Arabidopsis thaliana flowering by elevated growth temperature. PLoS Genet. 2006; 2:e106. pmid:16839183
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[78] View Article

[79] PubMed/NCBI

[80] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Efroni I, Han SK, Kim HJ, Wu MF, Steiner E, Birnbaum KD, et al. Regulation of leaf maturation by chromatin-mediated modulation of cytokinin responses. Dev Cell. 2013; 24:438–45. pmid:23449474
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[82] View Article

[83] PubMed/NCBI

[84] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Lifschitz E, Eviatar T, Rozman A, Shalit A, Goldshmidt A, Amsellem Z, et al. The tomato FT ortholog triggers systemic signals that regulate growth and flowering and substitute for diverse environmental stimuli. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006; 103:6398–403. pmid:16606827
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[86] View Article

[87] PubMed/NCBI

[88] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Sun J, Qi L, Li Y, Chu J, Li C. PIF4-mediated activation of YUCCA8 expression integrates temperature into the auxin pathway in regulating Arabidopsis hypocotyl growth. PLoS Genet. 2012; 8:e1002594. pmid:22479194
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[90] View Article

[91] PubMed/NCBI

[92] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Imaizumi T, Schultz TF, Harmon FG, Ho LA, Kay SA. FKF1 F-box protein mediates cyclic degradation of a repressor of CONSTANS in Arabidopsis. Science. 2005; 309:293–7. pmid:16002617
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[94] View Article

[95] PubMed/NCBI

[96] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Shen QH, Saijo Y, Mauch S, Biskup C, Bieri S, Keller B, et al. Nuclear activity of MLA immune receptors links isolate-specific and basal disease-resistance responses. Science. 2007; 315:1098–103. pmid:17185563
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[98] View Article

[99] PubMed/NCBI

[100] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Kidd BN, Edgar CI, Kumar KK, Aitken EA, Schenk PM, Manners JM, et al. The mediator complex subunit PFT1 is a key regulator of jasmonate-dependent defense in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell. 2009; 21:2237–52. pmid:19671879
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[102] View Article

[103] PubMed/NCBI

[104] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Song YH, Shim JS, Kinmonth-Schultz HA, Imaizumi T. Photoperiodic flowering: time measurement mechanisms in leaves. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2015; 66:441–64. pmid:25534513
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[106] View Article

[107] PubMed/NCBI

[108] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Chadick JZ, Asturias FJ. Structure of eukaryotic Mediator complexes. Trends Biochem Sci. 2005; 30:264–71. pmid:15896745
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[110] View Article

[111] PubMed/NCBI

[112] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Conaway RC, Conaway JW. Function and regulation of the Mediator complex. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2011; 21:225–30. pmid:21330129
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[114] View Article

[115] PubMed/NCBI

[116] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. An H, Roussot C, Suárez-López P, Corbesier L, Vincent C, Piñeiro M, et al. CONSTANS acts in the phloem to regulate a systemic signal that induces photoperiodic flowering of Arabidopsis. Development. 2004; 131:3615–26. pmid:15229176
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[118] View Article

[119] PubMed/NCBI

[120] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. Zheng L, Baumann U, Reymond JL. An efficient one-step site-directed and site-saturation mutagenesis protocol. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004; 32:e115. pmid:15304544
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[122] View Article

[123] PubMed/NCBI

[124] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Chen C, Ridzon DA, Broomer AJ, Zhou Z, Lee DH, Nguyen JT, et al. Real-time quantification of microRNAs by stem-loop RT-PCR. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005; 33:e179. pmid:16314309
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[126] View Article

[127] PubMed/NCBI

[128] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Sun J, Qi L, Li Y, Zhai Q, Li C. PIF4 and PIF5 transcription factors link blue light and auxin to regulate the phototropic response in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell. 2013; 25:2102–14. pmid:23757399
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[130] View Article

[131] PubMed/NCBI

[132] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Nakagawa T, Kurose T, Hino T, Tanaka K, Kawamukai M, Niwa Y, et al. Development of series of gateway binary vectors, pGWBs, for realizing efficient construction of fusion genes for plant transformation. J Biosci Bioeng. 2007; 104:34–41. pmid:17697981
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[134] View Article

[135] PubMed/NCBI

[136] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Author summary

Introduction

Results

The miR319-regulated TCPs promote Arabidopsis photoperiodic flowering

The miR319-regulated TCPs positively regulate CO transcription

The miR319-regulated TCPs act genetically upstream of CO in regulating flowering

TCP4 directly binds to the CO promoter and activate CO transcription

The miR319-regulated TCPs physically interact with the flowering activators FBHs but not the flowering repressors CDFs

TCP4 and FBH1 interact with each other through their transcriptional activation domains and additively activate CO transcription

Both the miR319-regulated TCPs and FBHs interact with the flowering time regulator PFT1

PFT1 Is genetically required for the role of TCP4 in promoting flowering

PFT1 Acts as co-activator of miR319-regulated TCPs and FBHs to facilitate CO transcription

PFT1 is enriched in the CO promoter to positively regulate CO transcription

Discussion

Materials and methods

Plant materials and growth conditions

Analyses of flowering time phenotype

DNA constructs and generation of transgenic/hybrid plants

RNA extraction and gene expression analysis

Yeast experiments

LCI assays

Transcriptional activity assays in N. benthamiana

Protein extraction and co-immunoprecipitation analysis

FLIM-FRET assays

ChIP assays

EMSA

Accession numbers

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Flowering times of the indicated genotypes under SDs.

S2 Fig. Expression of TCP4 and CO in Col-0 and 35S:TCP4 transgenic plants.

S3 Fig. FT expression levels in jaw-D and 35S:TCP4 plants.

S4 Fig. Spatial expression pattern of TCP4 in WT plant.

S5 Fig. The partial mRNA sequences of the wild type and miR319-cleavage-resistant derivatives of miR319-regulated TCP genes.

S6 Fig. Physical interaction between miR319-regulated TCPs and FBH homologs.

S7 Fig. Neither the miR319-regulated TCPs nor FBHs interact with CDFs.

S8 Fig. TCP4 and FBH1 interact with each other through their transcriptional activation domains.

S9 Fig. Both the miR319-regulated TCPs and FBHs interact with PFT1.

S1 Table. CO promoter fragments used in yeast one-hybrid assay.

S2 Table. Probes used in EMSA experiment.

S3 Table. Primers used for qRT-PCR.

S4 Table. Primers used for ChIP-qPCR assays.

S5 Table. Primers used for site-directed mutagenesis.

S6 Table. Constructs used in this study.

Acknowledgments

Author Contributions

References